The Practical Value of Studying Historical Theology

One of my theological intellectual goals has been to read through Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. As an Anglican priest I feel that I should be able to say that I have read Hooker from beginning to end. So far I am about halfway through volume 2 (book 5) of the edition edited by Keble. As anyone who has tried knows, Hooker is hard to read. In addition to being very prolix and polemical, he writes about controversies that can seem very far removed from anything relative to the life of the Church today. But the more I plod through this venerable old classic the more I find just how contemporary and relevant it really is. Because the reality is that many of the old controversies addressed by Hooker live on in the Church.

Case in point, the other day someone told me that Anglicans spend too much time and money worrying about decorating churches. Hooker addresses this question in Book V, making the argument form scripture and tradition that God's people have always seen fit to erect and embellish houses of worship. Another example, many Christians in Hooker's day decried the typical Anglican practice of preaching short (or no) homilies, assuming that God's word had to be communicated through long sermons. Hooker dismisses this notion again in several chapters of Book V, commenting especially on the power of simply reading the word of God to bring about repentance and conversion. The same controversy can still be observed in the church today.

There are many other examples that I have found from Hooker of the continued practical value and relevance of studying historical theology. Therefore I would not dismiss it as some people are quick to do. Because the voices of the 16th century and earlier can still speak to the needs of the Church today. Maybe if the Church had truly heeded the words of these authors in their own day she would not be in the mess she is in today!

Infant Communion

One of the hotly debated topics in today’s congregations is that of paedocommunion. The issue is coming up throughout the Church, regardless of denomination. It extends beyond whether one believes Confirmation or Chrismation to be a sacrament and an integral part of the Rites of Initiation. The more conservatively-minded feel that some category of “age of reason” must be defined. The early Western Church seems to have been confirming all those who had been baptized since the last visitation of the bishop. This would then mean that those who were between zero and three years old (assuming the bishop were visiting at least every three years) would have been confirmed and ready for communion according to the view that the full Rite of Initiation needs to be completed first. Even this is not an obstacle to communion according to the Roman Catholic Church as they have begun the practice of “First Communion” several years before Confirmation is received. For those within the Reformed tradition, views of covenant theology and the fact that a child participates in Old Testament covenant meals, such as the Passover, seems to be the battling ground. Whether Reformed or Catholic, those advocating having children receive communion still emphasize the “family meal” aspect and that such things depend upon what God has done in Baptism and not on what we understand. Much has been written and many minds have been stretched.

In this debate, one thing which might be helpful is the medical concept of “Free and Informed Consent.” As the Eucharist, in Patristic terms, is the “Medicine of Life,” a similarity between this concept in medicine and sacramental theology is not incongruous. Basically, informed consent refers to the doctor making clear to you all aspects of the medical treatment you are to undergo. One point in favor of paedocommunion, in my mind, has been the fact that the mother when pregnant receives communion for both herself and her unborn. I have felt it strange that we would “excommunicate” a child for three to seven years for simply being born. This would seem to confirm the harshest criticisms of St. Augustine’s theology.

I have likewise thought some aspects of Confirmation inconsistent. I was told that once I was confirmed I would be an “adult” member of the congregation, but the laws of non-profit organizations still restricted me from voting at meetings or holding office until eighteen. So inconsistencies abound naturally. Such inconsistencies stick in the craw of many young people and parents. One can easily say that “whoever sits at my table; eats my food” and then it becomes an issue of which father of which family takes the paedocommunion view or which pastor of which congregation. Arguably, however, the child has rarely been “given” permission to receive confirmation or not, and, likewise, communion. We have usually agreed in the Western Church that leading (or directing) the child to receive Confirmation (and thus Communion) is the last noticeable spiritual obligation on the part of those parents and godparents who have brought their child to the font. Thus it is typical that the child sees Confirmation as “graduation” and it corresponds often with graduation from parochial middle school in Roman Catholic parishes.    

              Yet “informed consent” provides an interesting category that Augustine might think would unify his warring spiritual progeny. A doctor can never withhold information, but what doctor can provide all information associated with a prescription or procedure? No doctor can. Nevertheless, the child under a certain age is not endued with a developed reason to decide for himself. There is no “proxy consent” associated with children under a certain age. A child’s guardian always decides. The spiritual danger associated with receiving the Medicine of Life incorrectly is nothing less than death, a “side-effect” of not discerning the Lord’s Body and Blood correctly. Many say that none of us can understand the mystery completely. So are we always in danger of discerning the Lord’s Body and Blood incorrectly? Will we put the child in such peril? Or does this make the paedocommunion-advocating parent or denomination responsible for a child’s possible lack of discernment? You see, we do not think that a person can ever be completely informed about a medical procedure. But a child under the “Age of Reason” is never able to be culpably informed at all. We can certainly say, “Whoever eats at my table, takes my medications,” to mix metaphors. However, to say that a minimal explanation of that Sacrament’s perilous side-effects which can be given to a child under the Age of Reason is sufficient is irresponsible. One does not learn about a medication’s side-effects simply by growing up and partaking when a parent takes it, especially if taking it wrongly leads to death. Eventually, some information needs to be related and total free and informed consent needs to be accepted by our children.

            With these thoughts in mind, it is easier to see that a pregnant mother is obliged to take medications safely for the sake of her unborn and to take Holy Communion seriously for the same reason. Those wishing to push the reception of communion to a lower age seem to want to say that children are eligible based upon membership. They are concerned with over-rationalizing. But the issue isn’t rationalism or mystery. It is rather about the child’s culpability. A parent may be able to say, “take the medication now” but only the child, after a certain age, is able to discern whether or not he is spiritually clean or unclean and can participate in the New Covenant meal. We are uncertain when the “Age of Reason” arrives and, arguably, some parents may feel it has arrived sooner for their children. Therefore, becoming culpable may arrive sooner than a spiritual guardian realizes. We don’t know when the child is culpable, but we can determine, through catechesis and the ability for self-examination and confession, that the Age of Reason has arrived (even if the child was spiritually culpable several years beforehand). We can determine when our children are able to culpably answer for themselves (while not yet eighteen and fully autonomous). We can determine when they are receiving in a free and informed way, but only through rational dialogue and questions which reveal whether the child has an informed conscience.    

Seminary Boy

I love good religious biographies. Recently I read Seminary Boy by John Cornwell, of "Hitler's Pope" fame. This book is a memoir of the time he spent at the now-defunct minor seminary known as Cotton College in England in the 1950's-60's. It is a beautifully written book that sheds light on a bygone world steeped in tradition and religion, a world that would soon be consigned to the dustbin of history by the very Church that created it. At the end of the book the reforms of Vatican II are firmly ensconced in the Church, and the author, who left Oscott major seminary and strayed from the faith for many years, but later returned, finds himself lamenting the lost liturgy and traditions of his youth.

He does not have a book detailing the time he left the Church and why, to the time he returned, but should he ever write that book I will be the first one to buy it. In researching this book I did discover that he recently wrote a book on John Henry Newman that was highly praised by none other than Alasidar Macintyre whose seminal work, After Virtue, is a must-read for anyone interested in theology. To me, if Macintyre praised this work on Newman, it must be a good book. That is the next book by Cornwell that I hope to read.

Those who might want to avoid Cornwell because of his book Hitler's Pope (which incidentally Cornwell has reevaluated) would really be missing out on a great book - which is in no way antagonistic towards the Roman Catholic Church or Christianity in general - if they didn't out check this incredibly moving book!

An Anglican Recommended Reading List

Taking some cues from other websites, I have decided to add a list of "recommended reading" on the left hand side of the blog. These are all books that I have read and feel comfortable recommending to anyone who wishes to learn more about the Anglican tradition.

Obviously, the list is not exhaustive, and there are many other good ones in each category that one could recommend. I am still working on the list, so that explains the lack of categories and certain authors.

A number of these books overlap in terms of the subject matter. Horton Davies' Worship and Theology in England, for example, could fit in any number of categories. I've categorized everything the best I could.

Many of these books are still in print. Others can be purchased used fairly easily for a great price (I recommend Amazon or ABE Books).

I hope every out there finds these recommendations helpful. May the Lord bless and keep you.

Some Reflections on the History Channel's Recent Series "The Bible"

The following is from the April 2013 edition of my parish's magazine "The Centurion." Archived volumes of The Centurion may be downloaded from the St. Alban's Church website.

During Lent the television and media world was abuzz about the History Channel’s exciting series known as The Bible. The creators of the series, Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, conceived the project in part because the Bible is the foundational text of western culture, and yet more and more people are unfamiliar with all of its content. In an fantastic op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal the producers noted that for generations a person’s intelligence was determined by how well he or she knew the Bible! What does such a statement imply about our contemporary society where so few people know the Bible?

Overall the miniseries was very well done. It had something for everyone... probably because because the Bible has something for everyone. Those tempted to nitpick about how various stories and details were presented should remember that the Bible is a very big book that covers thousands of years of history. Artistically speaking, it is impossible to capture all of the details of the various stories in four or five two-hour episodes. The series certainly holds its own with other famous dramatizations of the Bible, such as The Ten Commandments, and The Passion of the Christ. In some cases it even outdoes those old classics.

Many people from St. Alban’s watched this series and commented on how interesting and exciting it was. The net result from watching it will hopefully be that people will get curious enough about the Bible to actually sit down and read parts of it. There is no substitute actually sitting down and reading and studying God’s word! No movie, or TV show can replace opening the pages of this book and studying the written words, if for no other reason than that there is plenty of non-historical material in the Bible, such as poetry, that simply cannot be dramatized, and yet is important to know.

One of the things that I appreciated most about the miniseries is that it got me thinking once again about how I read and understand it the Bible. This is called hermeneutics - the science of interpreting the Bible. Hermeneutics is a most critical aspect of reading and studying the Bible. While most of us are not experts in this area, it is good to know that it exists, and that the Bible is book that needs to be interpreted. Watching a series like “The Bible” can be especially helpful in this regard.

Because it is an ancient library of texts, written over many generations, by a great many people from all over the world, the Bible can be a difficult book to adapt for film and TV. So producers often have to make creative decisions as to how to develop the story in such a way as to make it appealing and understandable. And they often add extra-biblical elements to make the story flow better on screen. These additions are interpretations. Usually, in the better produced shows like “The Bible” they are perfectly harmless, and even helpful. But nonetheless, producers of programs like “The Bible”need to be very careful in how they choose to interpret biblical texts through these embellishments, because sometimes they might convey something that is their own idea rather than something that is found in the text of the Bible.

In the same way, we sometimes take a little bit of creative license when we read the Bible. We imagine how scenes must have played out, how people’s voices sounded when they said certain things, and so on. We also might be tempted to fill in perceived or real historical and doctrinal gaps. All of this is unavoidable. But like TV and movie producers, we too must be very cautious when we do this. We have to be extremely careful about reading our own assumptions into the text and its world because we may put something there that is not meant to be there! While it is impossible to have an “Olympian” (i.e. pure, unbiased) view of the Bible, or anything else for that matter, we should at least be conscious that we bring to the text our own assumptions, and that sometimes those assumptions for various reasons are not always valid or correct (historically, theologically, morally, etc.).

That is but one thing that I got from watching this series. What did you get out of it? In a few weeks or so the church will have this series available to those who wish to view it. We also hope to be screening a much more in-depth series on the Bible on DVD at another parihsioner's house in the not-too-distant future. Please keep your eyes peeled for times and dates. In the meantime, remember that the best way to learn the Bible is to read and study it daily. And more important, the better we know the Bible the better we will know not only God and Christ, but also ourselves.